"In essence, this nation is getting ready to run an experiment it 

 has never done before — to see if we can reduce the federal invest- 

 ment in nondefense R&D by one-third and still be a world leader 

 in the 21st century. Nobody knows with certainty what the out- 

 come will be, but it seems like a pretty risky experiment." 



I must also note that I find myself in disagreement with the re- 

 port's recommendation on the federal role in civilian technology de- 

 velopment. And I understand that this is a somewhat polarizing 

 issue in the Congress itself. 



During the Reagan and Bush administration, after much policy 

 debate, broad agreement was achieved on the need for a federal 

 role in support of pre-competitive generic technology that was de- 

 termined to be essential for the competitiveness of American indus- 

 try, but that received insufficient investment by industry because 

 the full benefits could not be captured by the company making the 

 investment — this nonappropriability argument being the same jus- 

 tification for government support of basic research. 



Various panels convened by the National Academy of Sciences 

 and its sister academies played an important role in developing 

 this consensus view. It is surprising that the Academy report we 

 are considering today appears skeptical of federal collaborative pro- 

 grams with industry that seek to advance generic technology in 

 fields having important commercial potential, usually fields identi- 

 fied by industry itself. 



At a time when industry is turning more toward short-term re- 

 search focused on product development, more, rather than less, en- 

 couragement in resources should be provided for collaborative, ge- 

 neric research activities among industry, universities and govern- 

 ment. This report raises important issues and makes recommenda- 

 tions that deserve attention and debate. I am pleased that we will 

 have the opportunity review the report with the authors this morn- 

 ing, and I look forward to the discussions. 



And I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to insert a brief 

 statement by Ms. Jackson Lee with regard to the subject of this 

 hearing. 



Chairman Walker. Certainly, without objection. And the Chair 

 would also say that other such opening statements that members 

 may want to submit for the record would be granted, with unani- 

 mous consent at this point in the record. 



[The prepared statements of Mrs. Morella and Ms. Jackson Lee 

 follow:] 



Constance A. Morella 



Science Committee 



Hearing on the National Academy of Sciences Report on "Allocating Federal Funds 



for Science and Technology" 



February 28, 1996 



Mr. Chairman, with the beginning of this Congress, this Committee, under your 

 leadership, has engaged in a new process which puts us, as an authorizing commit- 

 tee, at the table with the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee in 

 the setting of public policy and in directing how our federal science and technology 

 funds are spent. 



In our first session of this Congress, we exercised our full policy-setting respon- 

 sibilities with a voice in the process. As part of that process, you asked all the sub- 



